An Arms Race On A Slow Spiral

The reaction in New Delhi was swift. Said defence minister George Fernandes: "Our own missile programme is continuing. Our Prithvi missiles are capable of reaching anywhere in Pakistan." This, some felt, would once again send temperatures soaring in the subcontinent, leading to an arms race, and hitting bilateral talks which, in any case, have been on the backburner for quite sometime. Now that Pakistan had announced it had Ghauri, the argument was India should go in for Agni, which has been in cold storage since January 1994, when it was last tested.

Within days of the Ghauri test, the father of Pakistan's nuclear programme, Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, announced that Islamabad was in the process of developing a more powerful missile, Ghaznavi, with a range of 2,000 km—500 km more than Ghauri. He said the country could carry out a nuclear test anytime, provided a political decision to this effect was taken. Days later, Pakistan President Mohammed Rafique Tarrar upped the ante when he urged that more missiles should be developed in the names of Muslim rulers: "Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Babri and Abdali missiles should be developed to make the defence of Pakistan impregnable."

The paradigm was in place—a Muslim Pakistan facing a Hindu India, revealing the deep-seated insecurities among Pakistani minds vis-a-vis India, aggravated by an India led by the "Hindu" Bharatiya Janata Party, which has said it wants to induct nuclear weapons.

In New Delhi, some feel these gestures—and Islamabad's aggression—are provocative. But Kanti Bajpai, associate professor of international relations at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, views Pakistan's actions as a response to the BJP's nuclear agenda: "They have concerns about India. Whether we think they are justified or not...it is true there has been some escalation in the missile rivalry. Pakistan feels they are under pressure to pull out their swords."

But will Ghauri's test-firing lead to an arms race? No, says former foreign secretary S.K. Singh, who has also served as India's high commissioner to Pakistan: "We do not want an arms race. We don't need it. Pakistan has tried to get into a situation of being able to cobble together a missile with the help of outside entities, like China or North Korea. It's their sovereign right." Adds Bajpai: "The missile and weapons development in the region has been very slow. Within a few months perhaps, you will see this will level off."

바카라 웹사이트V.A. Pai Panandiker, president, Centre for Policy Research, attributes the talk of tension to media hype. "It should be played down." Even an American diplomat admits that India's restrained response to Ghauri must be appreciated— "It's the media which is overreacting." But in Washington, South Asia expert Mansoor Ijaz is not so sure. He argues that Ghauri will "escalate the stakes dramatically in the region's nuclear chess match".

So why did Islamabad carry out the test? Was it only to counter the BJP's rhetoric? Significantly, the test was carried out about two weeks before American envoy to the UN Bill Richardson's visit to the region. Plans are also afoot to bring President Bill Clinton to South Asia. "Basically, the Pakistanis are looking to get their longer range missiles legitimised without sanctions," says Jasjit Singh, director of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA). He says that last October China gave an assurance to the US that it would not provide nuclear technology to anyone. In February, the US President sent proposals to the Congress for nuclear cooperation with China amounting to a business of $50 billion to $60 billion. Just when the US Congress is about to start considering the proposals, Pakistan began its tests. "With Clinton's impending visit to Asia, do you think the US will impose sanctions on China and Pakistan?" asks Jasjit Singh. The answer, according to him, is no.

Bajpai also feels that Islamabad chose aggression to remind the Americans that they can't be ignored and also to drive home the point that in their view, it's the Indians who're being aggressive. In Pakistan, there's a feeling that the West should be sent a message. Asserts Gen. Hamid Gul, a former ISI chief who was close to Gen. Zia ul-Haq: "If we have any other capabilities for our defence we should express them before the visit of President Clinton. This will kill any undue hope the Americans may have from us." Ditto former foreign secretary Shaharyar M. Khan: "This step was very necessary for our defence as well as for the morale of the country. These last few years have seen the Indians come up with their Prithvi and Agni missiles and we could not have been seen to be taking it lying down. We have to develop our own missiles even though this will now ruffle some feathers in the West and elsewhere. But at least if there is going to be an end to the missiles race, we start from a point of equality."

바카라 웹사이트What about the tremendous burden on the exchequer? "We will continue to make these sacrifices as we have been doing in the past. After all, nothing is greater than our national security. Today when we talk of a halt to the missile race in the region, we can start talking from a position of strength," says Gen. Gul.

For a nation on the verge of bankruptcy and living from hand to mouth, Gul's patriotism does not convince academic Tariq Rahman. "If these missiles are never used, then they will eat up our resources, increase tension, multiply mistrust and keep South Asia poor and backward. If they are used, the destruction they will cause will be so devastating that nobody will win the war," he says.

LIKE many others in Pakistan and India, Rahman feels if the two sides decide to use the missiles, the destruction would be devastating because they can only be useful if used with nuclear warheads. "I don't understand how such weapons increase security. Maybe, they prevent wars by deterring military adventures," he adds.

But there's no doubt that the arms build-up has scared many. Says academic Shameem Akhtar: "Sooner than later, India and Pakistan will have to talk about reduction of their arsenals to a level consistent with the requirements of their safety. It is essential that the big powers do not pressure Pakistan to renounce its nuclear option unilaterally. The only sensible and pragmatic way open to both India and Paksitan is to agree to establish a nuclear weapons free zone in the region and gradually bring about a mutually balanced reduction of their conventional forces."

Military experts 바카라 spoke to in Islamabad point their fingers at New Delhi for starting the missile race. "Who started the missile race in the region and made missiles targetted at Pakistan, like the Prithvi which can't reach China? We can't barter away our national security even if we have to pay a very high price. But at least with Ghauri, the strategic depth that India always boasted of against our defence capability is finished. We are now in a position also to strike deep," says one senior general.

Surprisingly, after the test-firing, the US reaction was rather mild. One reason for this could have been that during his recent visit to Washington, Pakistan Army Chief Gen. Jehangir Karamat is believed to have taken Clinton administration officials into confidence about the impending test. But there was a price to be paid perhaps—the release of Ayaz Baluch, a Pakistani national employed by the Americans in Islamabad for their drug enforcement programme. Baluch had allegedly encouraged senior Pakistan Air Force officials to smuggle heroin into the US, where in a sting operation they were promptly caught and put behind bars.

Another big question being debated is the origin of Ghauri. Islamabad has claimed that it is based largely on indigenous technology, a claim no one believes. According to Jasjit Singh, the missile is a Chinese CSS-5, a highly accurate weapon, which the Chinese themselves stopped producing some years ago but which has now made its appearance in Pakistan. He says there is intensive non-proliferation monitoring in the world. Everyone, and the CIA included, has been talking about Hatf-3 being with Pakistan. "Nobody had heard of Pakistan developing a missile with a 1,500 km range. Ghauri's pedigree is not certain. It is not indigenous. That is certain." He feels that India's security threat has not altered with Pakistan acquiring a longer range missile. Earlier also, they could hit Indian cities, but closer to the border. "There is no defence against missiles." He is emphatic that it's time India carries out an Agni test.

It's now well known that the Pakistani missile factory built with Chinese help is at Fatehjung, 50 km west of Islamabad. According to Indian defence analysts, this factory manufactures the guidance and control system, solid fuel and M-11 (Hatf-3) missile variants, whose technology Pakistan acquired from China. Sargodha is a big missile depot and some of the places the missiles are deployed are at Gujranwala, Okara, Multan, Jhang and Dera Nawab Shah.

Interestingly, it was in January this year that the Pakistanis had first announced that they would unveil their new IRBM Ghauri on Pakistan Day, March 23. In the March issue of Strategic Analysis, Swaran Singh, research fellow at the IDSA, writes: "It sounds like the well-known storyline of Chinese missiles making an appearance with Pakistani names and colours." The announcement then, according to Swaran Singh, was interpreted by experts as Pakistan's continued psychological warfare against India. Ijaz says that the Chinese too do not want India to be an Asian giant that rivals them and will continue to use Pakistan to harass India. US and Chinese aspirations mesh in the region and will ensure India and Pakistan do not get ahead of each other in the arms race.

But what happens to the talks, of which Sharif is such an enthusiastic proponent? Says additional secretary at the Pakistan foreign office, Tariq Altaf: "Tests have been conducted by the Indians for quite a number of years now. So what if we have also carried out a missile test? This in no way stops us from talking to each other. We have to respond to our security concerns and in the meantime also engage in talks." The Indians think this is too facile an explanation.

The fact that Sharif aide and information minister Mushahid Hussain visited the headquarters of Lashkar-e-Taiba (army of the pure), an extremist organisation which has openly claimed that it trains militants to fight in Kashmir, at Muridke, 30 km from Lahore, is a worrisome development. It is an extraordinary thing to ask for talks and then to consort with Lashkar-e-Taiba. The message to India can only be negative. The talks, it can be said, are not on for quite some time.

Agrees S.K. Singh: "There is no chance of talks. Pakistani ministers have never publicly associated with Kashmiri rebels. It is extremely provocative." How much leverage does the Pakistan army give politicians like Sharif who are keen on talks? Not much, feel Indian analysts. It is an open secret that the Pakistani army has never been happy with the talks and does not care what impact the test has on bilateral relations. Even in Pakistan it is felt that Sharif, despite his two-thirds majority and having emerged as the strongest prime minister, simply does not have a choice.

One theory doing the rounds is that the nuclear and missile parity between India and Pakistan will bring stability. Defence analyst Shirin Mazari, a staunch Sharif supporter who's against talks with India, argues that "once a stable security structure is established, the chances of long-term economic cooperation become more feasible, as does the potential for people to people contact".